1. ' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J---The above appeal through special leave of this Court has been filed against the judgment of Lahore High Court, dated 12-2-1989, whereby the regular first appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of trial Court dismissing the suit instituted by the appellant for specific performance and in the alternative for recovery of damages against the respondents was dismissed and the judgment of the trial Court was confirmed. The leave granting Order is as follows:- "Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiffs' side against the dismissal of their Regular First Appeal by the High Court. Earlier their suit for specific perfomance was dismissed but they were allowed the refund of the earnest money advanced for the transaction in question.
2. ' There are two legal questions involved in this case. One, whether, the Civil Court had the jurisdiction in this matter which had earlier been dealt with by the Settlement Authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 which barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. And secondly, whether section 27-B of the Specific Relief Act is a valid piece of legislation. Although the second point was not raised before the High Court but leave to appeal having been granted in that behalf by this Court in Muhammad Abdullah (deceased) and others v.
3. Mumtaz Begum and 5 others (1990 SCM R 691) we grant leave to appeal in this case also.
4. ' On the first point also learned counsel having read the order passed by a Settlement Commissioner in this case, contended that the point in issue in the present case was left by the Settlement Authorities to be brought before and decided by the Civil Court. Accordingly, the petitioners filed the present suit. This question also would require examination. Leave to appeal is granted on this question also. Security Rs, 5,000.
5. ' The property in dispute shall not be alienated during the pendency of the appeal."
6. Although leave was granted in the case on two points but after hearing the learned counsel for the parties we feel inclined to withdraw the leave granting order in so far it related to the validity of section 27-B of the Specific Relief Act as neither this point directly arose in this case nor it was urged by the appellant before the Courts below. We would, therefore, confine our consideration in this case on the second point in the leave granting order which relates to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of matters which the settlement authorities have jurisdiction to decide under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act' only).
7. ' In order to decide the above point it is necessary to state here the background of the present controversy. The predecessors of respondents 1 to 9 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the transferees') were transferred an Industrial Unit known as Karishan Cotton Factory, Okara, under the provisions of the Act. On 15-6-1969, 'the transferees' entered into an agreement of sale with the predecessors of the appellants (hereinafter to be referred as 'the purchasers') to sell the above Industrial Unit, for a consideration of Rs,7,50,000 and received a sum of Rs,25,000 by way of earnest money. It is alleged that at the time of entering into the above agrteement, the transferees had represented to the purchasers that they had acquired full ownership rights in the property and that they were competent to sell the same to the purchasers. The pruchasers paid a further sum of Rs,25,000 to the transferees on 22-6-1969 and a fresh agreement was executed between the parties. It is stated that subsequently the purchasers came to know that the transferees had to pay a sum of Rs,2,17,000 to the Settlement Department towards the balance of the transfer price of the aforesaid Industrial Unit at the time they entered into the sale agreement, with `the purchasers'. The purchasers, accordingly, made an application to the Settlement Commissioner, Industries, Lahore, on 24-10-1969, praying that the property may not be transferred in favour of any third party as they had already entered into an agreement of sale with 'the purchasers'. The purchasers also offered to the Settlement Authorities to clear the entire dues of the department amounting to Rs,2,17,000 in respect of the above industrial unit. The application made by 'the purchasers' to the Settlement Commissioner, Industries, Lahore, was directed to be presented before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Industries, Lahore, and it is the case of the appellants that on the same date it was filed before the said officer. It further appears that 'the transferees' on 26-10-1969 filed a deed of association, entered into between them and respondents 10 to 17, before the Additional Commissioner, Industries, Lahore, for adjustment of the balance of transfer price of the above industrial unit. In that agreement of association 'the transferees' surrendered all their rights and interests in the aforesaid industrial unit in favour of respondents 10 to 17. The purchasers who were made parties, on their request, in the above proceedings before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, opposed the acceptance of the agreement of association on the ground that they had already entered into an agreement of sale with 'the transferees'. The Additional Settlement Commissioner, however, rejected the contention of appellants' predecessors and accepted the agreement of association on 31-10-1969 with the result that respondents 10 to 17 were allowed to pay the balance of the transfer price through association and upon such payment a permanent transfer deed was issued in their favour. The purchasers then filed an appeal before the Settlement Commissioner. Lahore, against the order of Additional Settlement Commissioner, dated 31-10-1969, but it was dismissed by order dated 8-11-1969. The purchasers thereafter instituted a civil suit against 'the transferees' and respondents 10 to 17 claiming the following relief:-- "11. The plaintiffs pray for the following relief:-
(a) a declaration that order of 31-10-1969 and 8-11-1969 deed of association dated 25-10-1969 and the connected PTD are of no legal effect vis-a-vis the rights of the plaintiffs in the suit property;
(b) a decree ordering defendants Nos. 1 to 17 to specifically perform the said agreements and to do all acts necessary to put the plaintiffs in full possession of the said property;
(c) if for any legal reasons, specific performance is not granted, a decree directing defendants Nos.
8. 1 to 17 to refund the earnest money of Rs,50,000 to the plaintiffs and also to pay reasonable damages as may be assessed by Court. The plaintiffs tentatively calculate damages at Rs, seven lacs.
(d) the costs of the suit be awarded to the plaintiffs."
9. ' The Civil Judge dismissed the above suit on the ground that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the Settlement Authorities under the provisions of the Act. However, it was directed that the sum of Rs,50,000 received by 'the transferee' from 'the purchasers' towards the sale consideration of the property be refunded with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from June 1969 to the date of decree and future interest at the same rate till the amount was paid. The judgment of the trial Court was challenged by 'the purchasers' in a regular first appeal before the High Court in which cross-objections were filed by 'the transferee'. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, affirmed the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal as well as the cross- objections giving rise to the present appeal.
10. ' The learned counsel for the appellants contended before us that as respondents 10 to 17 had acquired the property with notice of the agreement of sale between 'the purchasers' and 'the transferee', they are bound to convey the property in favour of the appellants. It is also contended by the learned counsel that respondents 10 to 17 having derived their title from 'the transferee' are liable to convey the property and provisions of section 25 of the Act had no application in the case as the property has already gone out of the compensation pool. We are unable to agree with the above contention of the learned counsel for the appellants.
11. ' The transfer of industrial unit in the case in favour of respondents 10 to 17 was not an ordinary transfer of sale in favour of respondents 10 to 17 by `the transferee'. It was, in fact, a transfer of property in favour of respondents 10 to 17 by the Settlement Authorities under the provisions of the Act by accepting the surrender of the rights and interests of the transferee in the property in favour of respondents 10 to 17 through agreement of association.
12. ' This Court in the case of Mukhtaran Bibi v. Ata Muhammad (1985 SCMR 1506) relying on the decision in the case of Fazal Bibi v. Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1983 SC 163) held that acceptance of agreement of association before actual transfer of property in favour of transferee, was valid under the Act and such transfer could not be interfered with by the Civil Court. The learned counsel for the appellants is unable to show that the Settlement Authorities had no jurisdiction to accept the agreement of sale of association in the case or that the transfer of property in fravour of respondents 10 to 17 through acceptance of agreement of association was contrary to the provisions of the Act. In the absence of these considerations, the orders of Settlement Authorities could not be brought under challenge before the Civil Court in view of the provisions contained in section 25 read with section 22 of the Act. It cannot be disputed that so long the orders passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Industries), Lahore and the Settlement Commissioner (Industries), Lahore, held the field, the appellants could not succeed in the case. The order of Additional Settlement Commissioner, in the case accepting the .Agreement of Association between the transferee and respondents 10 to 17, was challenged by 'the purchasers' before the Settlement Commissioner in appeal, but it was dismissed. The purchasers did not take any further steps to challenge the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner which attained finality under section 22 of the Act. The orders passed by the Settlement Authorities, in the case, accepting the agreement of association between the transferee and respondents 10 to 17 were neither order without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the Act and as such the same could not be challenged before the Civil Court. The Courts below, therefore, rightly held that the suit filed by appellants was barred under the , provisions of the Act. No case for interference is made out. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed but in the circumstances of the case, we will make no order as to costs.